Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

Of course - as would the attacker be - and would likely ensure that the player remained incapacitated.
C'mon...
Well, no.

It's a video game, sold by a company, and marketed as providing a variety of possible activities.

When it turns out that one particular activity exerpts ultimate authority over all the others, and the only advice for anybody unwillinto to indulge in that activity is "go play by yourself", that's not a good look.

My attitude is that somebody who paid the same £30 for the game that I did has as much right to play in Open as I do, regardless of what they want to spend their time doing.
That's not to say I don't think they should be able to avoid being exploded.
I just don't think it's right to tell them "go play by yourself".
The solution needs to be MUCH smarter than that.
Why don't you put it like that in the first place then, instead of comparing a player who blows up another one's ship with a schoolyard bully?
  1. I'm on my way to the station, trying to concentrate on avoiding the loop of shame when I'm interdicted.
  2. I get an interdiction attempt. If I win, I find myself on the far side of the station, and I have to set back up, get on the right side of the station and do my approach all over again. If I don't win...
  3. I get dropped into realspace where...
    1. I lose a portion/all of my cargo.
    2. I get to enjoy having my ship shot up and suffer the indignity and frustration of being disturbed and teabagged by someone I don't know and don't want to interact with.
    3. I have to go through the process of rebooting my modules and limping to a station, where I have to pay a lot of credits to get everything repaired.
  4. Once that is over, I sell what remains of my cargo and log off, in a bad mood, my relaxing enjoyable gaming experience soured. I'm angry at the at who tried to make me his content, I'm irritated that some of my cargo was stolen, I'm vexed that I had to pay to repair my ship and I'm ed off that someone interfered in my relaxing gaming experience.
  5. The at gets rewarded with some tasty cargo and a warm fuzzy feeling for preying on an unarmed transport ship. And who says bad behaviour is never rewarded?
Where did you get "no downside" from, again?
Well in the first place all of the above can happen now too. With the flag @Screemonster suggested you wouldn't be able to loose your ship though. I'd argue that this is an upside.

Secondly most of the above can happen with an npc interaction too theoretically. Personally I feel more griefed by npc interdictions tbh as they are pointless and nothing more than a speed bump...
 
Last edited:
Secondly most of the above can happen with an npc interaction too theoretically. Personally I feel more griefed by npc interdictions tbh as they are pointless and nothing more than a speed bump...
I had an NPC for a mission interdict me less than 1ls from the outpost yesterday. I killed them, got back into supercruise, and the next one spontaneously appeared directly behind me when I was 5Mm away and screwed up that approach too.
 
It was a simple question about risk.

The only risk is what you do and how you do it.

People vote when they click Open or Solo/PG, or when they combat log (in some ways). This is what the thread is about - lack of proper PvP mostly because people don't want it.

And yet I'm told Open is the most popular mode.

Or fly in Solo or PG and the problem stops.

I wish people would really if they don't want to be pirated, attacked etc.

It's all OK. Killing in the game is OK. As I said, it's not about right or wrong, but desirable and undesirable. People don't CL because it's wrong to kill them, but because they don't want to be killed. I don't falsely equate not wanting to lose your ship to it being wrong to kill another player. I just observe that many players avoid that scenario since they don't enjoy it, win or lose.

And ordinarily I'd agree, but when it comes to piracy, Powerplay or missions other things depend on that interaction playing out- why consequences need to happen otherwise that interaction is pointless.

So? That's a convenient distinction. If the game has poor design choices for mat gatherers and miners and mission board hoppers, why does that magically resolve with unwanted PvP?

Well, its is a distinction, like I said above, the outcome of Dav is you gaining something, while someone escaping a pirate or Powerplay rival affects the BGS / PP. If logging for mats affected other players or the BGS directly I'd agree but it does not.

How is that working for you?

When people realise there is a message box, it works- it has to be short because I don't use a macro to send elaborate messages.

Again, blame the equal and opposite reaction. Unwanted gank, unwanted combat log. Must be the combat log that's the problem because the box says I can kill you at my leisure. The box doesn't say the other person will play along. I don't agree with combat logging. If you're going to play in Open, you have to accept the consequences. Therefore many do not play in Open because they also don't agree with combat logging OR they simply don't see any entertainment value in providing you content.. again, what's in it for them? Certainly not entertaining based on your cardboard approach, cargo or die.

The 'fun' comes from actually being pirated by a ship thats not constrained by the limited AI in the game currently. It can't intelligently look for people, be inventive. If you want to face off against real danger, then its for you. But if not, trade or mine in a mode that has that level of pirate. RP is fun until it gets in the way of the actual doing.

If there was no onward consequence then I'd be less rankled, for example 1 on 1 PvP arena fights because its over nothing, its clear who won and who capitulated. But its not like that, because piracy is a valid career and players often have the best stuff, so its natural in Open to gravitate towards other players who gain very, very quickly in comparison. I find it funny that a LTD miner won't give up 10 diamonds from 700 and will log, rather than actually play along- it says a lot about 'role play' even when you do it.

The pirates don't have to be pirates. If a miner was struggling, someone would suggest they do something else. For some reason a pirate is exempt from that.

Then there is no game really. All we have is mine > get ships > fool about. All the guff about a living galaxy is rubbish, because it does not have moving parts that live- just abstractions. If there was less fooling about and actual roles for criminal as well as legit pilots, you'd have less griefing.

The problem is that it's really really difficult to discern ganker from griefer while you are being interdicted. Everything else is just cause and effect. In Solo, you don't have to decide, it's always a ganker. I like gankers, don't care for griefers. It's well know many here and there routinely flip flop between the two, some even stream it.

How much space is inside a combat fit FdL? Where are you? What are you doing? I'd say in about 50% of cases you can cold read them apart quite easily. The radar and SC scanning is not a toy, its a vital tool that I think a lot of people forget about.

I don't care if gankers are bored. They cannot get to Solo or PG. I'd like everyone to play in the same instance and have a real set of relationships and meaningful actions and consequences, but we know better.

And if you read my responses from yesterday I outlined how that might happen- but there has to be consequences even in your vision otherwise playing in the same instance is make believe.
 
Given the events that some players have engaged in over the years, I would not be surprised if there were a number of extremely wealthy CMDRs prepared to bankroll friends (and their own altCMDRs) for the purpose engaging in such activities.

The only way is to find out- but then that comes down to traders again, they have all the power here.
 
It would, obviously - unless the player chose to self destruct, of course.

Thats a valid game choice, because its in game consequences.

Pretty much any action a player carries out has an effect on the BGS - so what this is effectively saying is "unless you're doing nothing, you can be trapped in an instance". Given the attacker can't see missions held by the player, bounties, combat bonds, etc. (and many don't bother to fit a cargo or kill warrant scanner), the attacker likely has no proof of what the target is really doing.

It would be limited to: missions, merits (or related PP cargo), local bounty (i.e. you are wanted in that system at a superpower or faction level). I could separate out neutral plain cargo and data (which as you point out have BGS effects, but are not always used as such).

And like I said, it does not rely on 'proof', it just happens or it does not. The person being attacked will know because the menu log will say "you cannot exit due to holding / doing xyz".

The game doesn't make that distinction - no matter how much some may like it to.

If you have no PP bounty, or hold no cargo or merits, you are 'clean' as far as the NPCs go, which is enough for this idea.

.... and bounties, exploration data, combat bonds, etc.. Pretty much anything that the player can carry in their ship has some consequence for the BGS.

And as I said above, the system would only filter people who hold certain things- so data and cargo (which can be used) are considered neutral while illegal items in a system, combat bonds etc are filters.

It's marketing - and has no control over the game itself.

I'd be fed up if I wanted Cocopops and got Bran Flakes.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
But thats not what is being discussed, its a 'what if' discussion.
Indeed.
Right now Open has no consequences to it, the game feeds griefers money and people wonder why they do what they do.
Open has the same consequences as playing in the other two game modes - with the added option of other players. I doubt that changing menu exit to stop players using it in certain situations would make G&G less prevalent. There's no real mystery as to why some players engage in G&G - they want to - because if they didn't want to, no-one can force them to engage in it.

If changing menu exit is on the table then a simple change would remove the complaints of players attacking then exiting: the player who is the first to land a shot on another player loses the ability to menu exit while instanced with any players. Consideration could also be given to handing the player who has lost the ability to menu exit an automatic rebuy if they lose connection while still instanced with other players.
 
Last edited:
Open has the same consequences as playing in the other two game modes - with the added option of other players. I doubt that changing menu exit to stop players using it in certain situations would make G&G less prevalent. There's no real mystery as to why some players engage in G&G - they want to - because if they didn't want to, no-one can force them to engage in it.

If changing menu exit is on the table then a simple change would remove the complaints of players attacking then exiting: the player who is the first to land a shot on another player loses the ability to menu exit while instanced with any players. Consideration could also be given to handing the player who has lost the ability to menu exit an automatic rebuy if they lose connection while still instanced with other players.

Open has the same consequences as playing in the other two game modes

If I can pirate an NPC who does not log, why is it someone in open with cargo can't be pirated the same? Because players can exit when they feel like it and not suffer for it, thats not equal.

Sadly FD have lost control of the game, and that we have the worst of both worlds.
 
If I can pirate an NPC who does not log, why is it someone in open with cargo can't be pirated the same? Because players can exit when they feel like it and not suffer for it, thats not equal.

Because the NPC is not an actual human. The NPC is there for your amusement, actual humans are not, they are there for their amusement.

You can only negatively affect their enjoyment, you provide no positive value to them at all, so they can exclude you if they want.

In a PvP piracy situation, the best outcome for the player being pirated is that the encounter doesn't happen. There's no positive outcome for them where it does. They can't actually get anything from you as a pirate. You think they get "fun", but everyone who is disagreeing with you in the thread is telling you that it is not in fact fun for them.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
If I can pirate an NPC who does not log, why is it someone in open with cargo can't be pirated the same? Because players can exit when they feel like it and not suffer for it, thats not equal.
The other player has free will and the NPC is provided as entertainment - so it was never equal in the first place. Frontier choose not to force players to continue interactions.
Sadly FD have lost control of the game, and that we have the worst of both worlds.
Opinions vary, regarding control and also what the game is trying to be in the first place.
 
Because the NPC is not an actual human. The NPC is there for your amusement, actual humans are not, they are there for their amusement.

You can only negatively affect their enjoyment, you provide no positive value to them at all, so they can exclude you if they want.

Its either a game loop, or its not. The trader is playing in Open with cargo, the aim to to deliver it. The pirate wants the cargo.

Without either its not functional, if 50% of people log on you for no reason in Open, thats a broken mode because the person interdicting can't be as effective as a trader who makes money hand over fist all the time every time.
 
The other player has free will and the NPC is provided as entertainment - so it was never equal in the first place. Frontier choose not to force players to continue interactions.

Clicking Open is consenting to be content- just as the pirate is content for the trader.

Opinions vary, regarding control and also what the game is trying to be in the first place.

I don't think FD even now really.
 
Logging would have to be the ultimate victimless "crime" though surely ?
Hardly a crime.
And yet, when you are in Open only players have the hauls that actually matter. Plus, a player consciously logs into Open for a reason, and that is interaction. If they don't want interaction, why are they there?



Again, you log into Open for a reason, interaction and greater risk. But, when that risk gets too much you pull the plug or block you deny the valid opposition of a 'win' (denying merits, space, time).

Its not a matter of something requiring PvP, its actually making the PvP meaningful when it happens. If people break the game loop and there is no valid conclusion, thats not a game, its just random events.



Its like playing a game of football and blocking people who tackle you- is that football? The same is true for Powerplay, if you are caught and are about to lose merits that should be a win, and yet you can win even when you lose. The same for piracy- you lost should have no more options but to give the cargo- but instead you remove yourself and you win by trading the full amount.

Thats not a game for anyone.
Peopel dont play football to have a coop experience. But ED players might, but open doesnt deliver that properly.
 
Back
Top Bottom